MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Lofty hold out for his dream job?

donkeyderby_2

Should Lofty take the job?. Well, yes i suppose as a means to a end if there's nothing else about and he dosen't fancy the dole but my argument also is that if Lofty took the job, as a temp option, then he's taken that job out of the jobs market. Say for instance a single mum, with low skills or qualifications but wants to work for a living wanted that job, she may well fit the bill, but can't have the job because Lofty has it, but she's got no degree to fall back on.

I'm a bit undecided on the "graduates do menial work" theme, as i am a unskilled chimp, for want of a better word (as that is what some people would describe us...) with only GCSE's and a BTEC in IT to fall back on who is currently unemployed and claiming JSA and HB.

If the graduates take all the menial work, what's going to be left for the people who can only do these jobs?, retrain? (costs money for anything other than basic skills) or dole?. I'll think you'll find a lot more dole claimers.

I have to agree with Wishface on a lot of points, i do also agree also that there are a lot of Mickey Mouse degrees issued from tin pot Uni's that believe the power of their own publicity too much, but if i'd done a degree and all that faced me in the world of work was shelf stacking i'd feel cheated.

A degree can be very hard work to get, i have siblings who really struggled to get them, and i know i'm not academic enough to get one.

I, back in the good old days of the early noughties, left a well paid but menial job as a factory storeman to work at Morrisons as a shelf stacker on Nights for lower pay but the hours were better.

I lasted two days, i've done many a !!!! job in my time to earn money, from cleaning factories to polishing cars, but this was one of the worst, a "want it done yesterday" culture and a very poor oppressive atmosphere and TBH, back then in "jobs-a-plenty" days, getting a bit above minimum wage for the job wasn't worth the hassle, so i jacked it in and luckily got my old job back.

I have nothing but total 110% respect for any supermarket or fast food worker now because i know that i wouldn't last five minuites!

One poster said that like Terry Leahy of Tesco, he could work his way up, that i don't deny, but i've seen more cases of Management keeping people on the shop floor because it suits them, (who will cover their shifts?!) even if the person is bright and wants to progress, than them saying "Well done!, put your broom to the side mate and come and get your key for the executive washroom!". One thing i've seen is that managers in menial jobs such as Supermarkets and the fast food industry get treated like garbage for not much extra pay.

wishface

englishmac wrote: »

We all have dreams. They are what makes the reality bearable. But it isn't fair on others to turn down a job if the alternative is claiming benefits.

How?

Is it fair to take a low paid job that someone else could do knowing you could and therefore should (not least by virtue of studying for it) doing something better (else). Maybe something that this someone else could not do.

janbanan

wishface wrote: »

Noone has insulted anyone; that's just a stance you've invented so you can take a position. Just like the assumption that lofty thinks he's better than anyone else. It's the insecurities of the masses in response, conditioned by the media, that seem to dictate policy, and i don't agree with that.
Everyone should have the right to a decent career if they must exist within this capitalist system of course (even though it doesn't work). I say bring in the citizens wage.

I saw some comments comparing shelf stocking as sending children down chimneys, and "victorian times" which are hardly appreciative of people who do these jobs.

Right to a decent career - yes, but it also means taking some responsibility. I don't think it's quite right to expect anyone else pay for your living just because you have completed a degree and you cannot instantly find the work you want. I don't see why Lofty cannot work (at least part-time) and try to find better employment at the same time. I know people who both work full-time in their old jobs while also studying full-time on distance who would love to be in that position.

Taking the job off the market - I do understand that he will be taking jobs from those with even less qualifications, but Lofty is in need of this employment just as much as they are as his alternative would be seeking benefits.

englishmac

wishface wrote: »

How?

Is it fair to take a low paid job that someone else could do knowing you could and therefore should (not least by virtue of studying for it) doing something better (else). Maybe something that this someone else could not do.

What is the difference between paying benefit to someone with qualifications as ooposed to someone without? The cost to the taxpayer is the same. If Lofty is so good, it is a matter of time until he gets his dream job. Then the job will become available to anyone else who wants to apply. If he isn't as good as he thinks, he needs the benefits just as much as the unqualified person.

wishface

janbanan wrote: »

I saw some comments comparing shelf stocking as sending children down chimneys, and "victorian times" which are hardly appreciative of people who do these jobs.

Right to a decent career - yes, but it also means taking some responsibility. I don't think it's quite right to expect anyone else pay for your living just because you have completed a degree and you cannot instantly find the work you want. I don't see why Lofty cannot work (at least part-time) and try to find better employment at the same time. I know people who both work full-time in their old jobs while also studying full-time on distance who would love to be in that position.

Taking the job off the market - I do understand that he will be taking jobs from those with even less qualifications, but Lofty is in need of this employment just as much as they are as his alternative would be seeking benefits.

So is theirs, and you didn't see any such comparison because none has been made.

wishface

englishmac wrote: »

What is the difference between paying benefit to someone with qualifications as ooposed to someone without? The cost to the taxpayer is the same. If Lofty is so good, it is a matter of time until he gets his dream job. Then the job will become available to anyone else who wants to apply. If he isn't as good as he thinks, he needs the benefits just as much as the unqualified person.

so what is the problem then?

englishmac

wishface wrote: »

so what is the problem then?

The attitude that you're too good to do certain jobs and it's OK for others - including people working in supermarkets - to pay your way. It isn't OK. We'd all like to pick and choose what we WANT to do; if everybody did it, we would have major problems.

Lofty can do what he likes provided he isn't bu**ing off the social. If he needs to draw benefits to live, he has a responbility to get a job and pay his way.

chriswatts

donkeyderby wrote: »

Should Lofty take the job?. Well, yes i suppose as a means to a end if there's nothing else about and he dosen't fancy the dole but my argument also is that if Lofty took the job, as a temp option, then he's taken that job out of the jobs market. Say for instance a single mum, with low skills or qualifications but wants to work for a living wanted that job, she may well fit the bill, but can't have the job because Lofty has it, but she's got no degree to fall back on.

This is the reason I believe that university grants should be brought back and fee's scrapped. Because like wise if Lofty has had to pay course fees and pay his way though university I'm surprised that these days he hasn't had to take like many part time work or work in university vacation. It could be said that that work could have also have been done by the single mum, with low skills or qualifications.

Of course one answer would be to reduce the number of Lofty's going to university and not make it common practice for people to attend university. In many jobs these days it does seem that a degree has become the standard qualification if you want a job and not just one for specialist posts. But then how would parents feel if they are told their little darlings can't attend because of limited numbers or not being in the top 2% of society! Perhaps Mensa membership should be a requirement for university entrance?

wishface

englishmac wrote: »

The attitude that you're too good to do certain jobs and it's OK for others - including people working in supermarkets - to pay your way. It isn't OK. We'd all like to pick and choose what we WANT to do; if everybody did it, we would have major problems.

Lofty can do what he likes provided he isn't bu**ing off the social. If he needs to draw benefits to live, he has a responbility to get a job and pay his way.

a responsibility to whom?

where did lofty say he was too good for whatever?

emmiemoo_2

I recently left my £25k sales job to go traveling for 3 months and having been back for 4 months, have struggled to get a job. So now I have a cruddy £6.50 per hour call centre job to tide me over whilst I do a distance learning course for a career change into my dream job. If it is his dream he will eventually get there, but sitting on his backside for God knows how long waiting for one to fall in his lap will not look good whether or not he is a graduate. Take the job, at least it is money and it shows to your potential employers your not afraid to get down and dirty and try your hand at anything.